Colts Officially Release Peyton Manning (QB Thread #11)

Agreed...unless Tannehill turns out to be a much better QB than expected.

he's not ready to start in the nfl

I hadnt really thought about it until i read the article linked here, but this is a big area of concern if we sign manning:

Five thoughts on Redskins signing Manning | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/nfl/2012/03/five-thoughts-redskins-signing-manning/348506)

4. The offensive line's strength does not mesh with a straight drop-back passing game. The Redskins' line is built to block on the move and is helped by play-action and bootlegs. But Manning made bad and mediocre lines look good in Indianapolis with quick decision making. If he's in a system he knows well and with players he's comfortable with, that should continue. However, it should increase the need to find a right tackle in the draft eventually to replace oft-injured Jammal Brown. Of course, that could happen anyway.



If we get manning, we may not have the right type of offensive line to protect him. So lets just say we change our OL philosophy and overhaul the line (including drafting a tackle in the 1st round) to better suit a straight drop-back passing game. What do we do when manning retires in 3-5 years? get rid of the line again and go back to a more shanahan-esque line with smaller, more athletic guys? or stick with the manning-esque system so we keep the line in tact? As much as i love the idea of manning in the B&G, these concerns are really making me reconsider my position.

he's not ready to start in the nfl

Anything can happen (see Andy Dalton), but I would much rather have RG3 or Manning, than having to bet on Tannehill and Grossman/Orton.

60-40? So does that mean you're 100% sure (as sure as you can reasonably be) well get one or the other?

Oh no, I was just speaking in terms of those two only. Though, from what I hear it's probably 90% it will be one of those two (doubt it's both)

I hadnt really thought about it until i read the article linked here, but this is a big area of concern if we sign manning:

Five thoughts on Redskins signing Manning | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/nfl/2012/03/five-thoughts-redskins-signing-manning/348506)

If we get manning, we may not have the right type of offensive line to protect him. So lets just say we change our OL philosophy and overhaul the line (including drafting a tackle in the 1st round) to better suit a straight drop-back passing game. What do we do when manning retires in 3-5 years? get rid of the line again and go back to a more shanahan-esque line with smaller, more athletic guys? or stick with the manning-esque system so we keep the line in tact? As much as i love the idea of manning in the B&G, these concerns are really making me reconsider my position.

Regardless of who's the QB, we need a RT period. I think o-line play may be something Manning can adjust to, but I also think that the thread of Manning makes any o-line better. Manning is notorious for picking up apart blitz-happy defenses, and that was without a running game.

While I think our o-line should be much improved (provided they stay healthy, but that happens to every o-line), I also think having a QB of Manning's caliber, along with an actual running, should take care of any o-line issues.

Grossman and Beck didn't scare any defenses, so they stacked the line and blitz the hell out of us. I don't think the same thing will be happening with Manning under center and an improved receivers group.

Anything can happen (see Andy Dalton), but I would much rather have RG3 or Manning, than having to bet on Tannehill and Grossman/Orton.

Good point. But for some reason I feel like Dalton was the better prospect, but that is a view probably held by nobody. I know I sound like a broken record, the games I saw Tannehill play, not alot impressive.

Same thing will happen if you get Tannehill.

True but I kinda doubt we would go with RT at #6 if we got Manning.

I think we'd go BPA at #6, and look for a QB to develop later on.

Oh no, I was just speaking in terms of those two only. Though, from what I hear it's probably 90% it will be one of those two (doubt it's both)

A 90% chance of either Manning or Griffin makes for a happy day.

All that sounds good. He looks the part. But doesn't history show that there's a 50% chance that either Luck or RG3 will be a bust? ... or won't live up to expectations?? I can't give up all those picks for Griffin. We're simply not in a position to do so.

If you take away Rex's turnovers and the Beck experiment from last year, we were in the playoff hunt. Add good quarterbacking to the roster we had and we were making noise.

From this point of view, we are not in a position NOT to make a play for a big-time QB.

A 90% chance of either Manning or Griffin makes for a happy day.

Definitely. Those are odds I like.